SF M6 best combo-bulb/batteries?

Hello all,

As i always wanted to buy it i never did, till now

I have started the process with ordering C2+Z58 HA III, then thought about Leef 2x18650 for my M2 and M3 head.... I think there is no cure for the illness....

But then the new IMR gives more options.... and the M6 is my final choice, rather than playing with extensions etc. (i'm sure i will have too in the future).

So which combination will be best for that light with rechargeable batt. .....?

LF IMR-M6 + 6x16340 IMR

FM MN bi pin socket + WA or other + 3x17670 in FM holder or 2x18650 in OddMods adapter

What i'm looking for is a combination of value for money and output.... Wouldn't like to flash bulbs every few hours ...

Thanks

spend a few hours (or days) looking this over... and you'll know all there is to know. :twothumbs
The Surefire M6 thread compendium


EDIT: (from the above link)
and this
SureFire M6 rechargeable options – SHOOTOUT http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/...d.php?t=204157

If you are just looking for opinions, then I would say the best option is to get the Megalennium body to run 3 x 18650 cells. These can be used with the FM MN bi pin socket to power a WA 1185, WA 1331, or CL 809 (high, medium and low respectively). Personally, I prefer the switch on the stock M6 to the one on the Megalennium, but that seems to be the only disadvantage, and the advantages easily outweigh it.

To save money but reduce runtime you could use the 3 x 17670 holder with any of these bulbs as well. You pay more for the bi pin socket up front, but the bulbs are much cheaper than a LF lamp assembly and you get more output/runtime options.

You could also get:

• Pete's 3P2S 6 17500 holder. It gives you 3300mAh and 8.4v.
• With his STC, it also allows you to use 2 IMR C cells in your M6 body.
• Petes 6S holder 6 AA NiMH. This gives you 8.4v and 2800mAh of NiMH or Alkaline primaries for those situations when only AA Alkalines are available.

P.S. I have the 3 things mentioned above for sale

Wow the Megalennium is awesome

So when you have such an option, why to buy M6 where you can have KT4 with Megalennium?

How's the setup of B20 with 6x16340IMR running WA1185? will it instaflash it?

Can you adjust the bulb in the FM MN bi pin socket to get it best focused?

Thanks

oren1s said:

Wow the Megalennium is awesome

So when you have such an option, why to buy M6 where you can have KT4 with Megalennium?

How's the setup of B20 with 6x16340IMR running WA1185? will it instaflash it?

Can you adjust the bulb in the FM MN bi pin socket to get it best focused?

Thanks

Click to expand...

The stock Surefire B20 holder is a 3s2P holder. So you add up the voltage of 3 cells and add up the capacity of 2 cells.

It is 11~12.4v and about 1100mAh capacity. The WA1185 I am sure will survive, but the runtime will be very little. I used the WA1185 with 3 aw17670's in my M6.

The Mega from fivemega is awesome and compact. I hear the LED KT-4 options work better with the stock M6 tube and the Mega works best with an incan set-up.

I like the stock M6 tube because I like the idea of running 2 IMR C cells with Petes STC. Stock lengh M6 with MN21 and 2 IMR C cells....

Jose

just too many options

And yet after reading, and reading.... don't know what to decide....

Does the LF IMR-M6 have a longer life span than WA1185?

oren1s said:

just too many options

And yet after reading, and reading.... don't know what to decide....

Does the LF IMR-M6 have a longer life span than WA1185?

Click to expand...

Very good question, I would like to know as well..

After having both of the lamps in my M6 the IMR-M6 seems to have more throw than the WA1185. The WA1185 did 1150ish out the front lumens in MrGman's sphere with 3 AW 17670 cells, but after 3 minutes was down to about 800 lumens.

So,
If you are going to have about 800 lumens after 3 minutes, why not look at a 800 lumen lamp? It would hold the 800 lumens longer than the wa1185 will hold 900plus lumens running the same set-up.

Yes, but the 1185 on 3 AW p2600 18650 cells would be another story altogether. :thumbsup:

mudman cj said:

Yes, but the 1185 on 3 AW p2600 18650 cells would be another story altogether. :thumbsup:

Click to expand...

It might not....Example....

I have a Nailbender 1D P7. MrGman tested it with both a single IMR 18650 and IMR C cell. In theory the IMR C cell should have held the 700 out the front lumens longer or better with the added mAh capacity. It was almost identical, so he didn't update his thread because nothing increased or improved.

The WA1185 with the new cells if I recall should handle the high current better. I got the same Mag 1D P7 and tested the current at the tail with 4 of my cells to see what I get.

1. with an AW 2600mAh cell 18650 size = 2.8A the tail
2. with IMR 18650 1600mAh = 2.9~3.0 At the tail
3. with IMR C cell = 3.4A at the tail
4. with KD D li-on cell = 2.6A at the tail

If the IMR 18650 offers less power why did the bigger IMR C cell produce the same lumens in the sphere?

My guess is the extra current was wasted energy due to heat in which case the wa1185 wouldn't be affected by this.

oren1s said:

just too many options


Does the LF IMR-M6 have a longer life span than WA1185?

Click to expand...

I believe this is the case. While I've never flashed or burnt out any HO-M6R's I have toasted my share of 1185's. The LF bulb was designed with this voltage in mind while the 1185 is rather over driven at this voltage. The LF bulb is really terrific and stays burning nice and white for a long time. It's really hard to go wrong with the LF in the M6.

1st you guys are dreadful

2nd I have just paid for FM MN Socket + 5 WA01185

Going to have Megalennium the latter ver.

AW SoftStart

LF IMR-M6

AW 18650 2600mah will need 6

So now, i have to think from where to draw some cash LOL for the new thing

As i'm located in Israel, its hard to sell lights over here in order to finance new toys by old ones....

How's the diffuser work with WA01185 or LF?

I have 10x, so now with the M6 and new options, its useless, though it was as such since day one, when i got it

bigchelis said:

It might not....Example....

I have a Nailbender 1D P7. MrGman tested it with both a single IMR 18650 and IMR C cell. In theory the IMR C cell should have held the 700 out the front lumens longer or better with the added mAh capacity. It was almost identical, so he didn't update his thread because nothing increased or improved.

The WA1185 with the new cells if I recall should handle the high current better. I got the same Mag 1D P7 and tested the current at the tail with 4 of my cells to see what I get.

1. with an AW 2600mAh cell 18650 size = 2.8A the tail
2. with IMR 18650 1600mAh = 2.9~3.0 At the tail
3. with IMR C cell = 3.4A at the tail
4. with KD D li-on cell = 2.6A at the tail

If the IMR 18650 offers less power why did the bigger IMR C cell produce the same lumens in the sphere?

My guess is the extra current was wasted energy due to heat in which case the wa1185 wouldn't be affected by this.

Click to expand...

This is a different situation from the comparison I was making. First of all, your example uses an LED. Running a P7 at 3.4A is typically not going to give more measurable lumens than at 3.0A due to the fact that the LED operates less efficiently as the die temperature increases. In fact, there are cases in which running the LED at higher currents actually produces less light output because of this phenomenon. Of course, the point at which the LED no longer gives more light with more current will depend upon the heat sinking. In the case of an incandescent bulb, runnning more current through the bulb will give higher lumens.

Secondly, the extent to which cell voltage sags for IMR cells as cell capacity is varied is not equal to the extent to which cell voltages sag for Li-ion cells of cobalt chemistry. Cobalt chemistry Li-ion cells sag more under high loads than IMR chemistry and therefore increasing cell capacity has more of an effect on the sustainable voltage.

My point is that running the 1185 on AW 2600mAh cells will produce more measurable lumens than running it on 17670 cells with cobalt chemistry.

That said, the OP should be aware that in order to use these new cells with the Megalennium body will require small magnets (I suggest 5mm diameter x 1mm thick nickel plated rare earth magnets) be used at the negative end of each battery due to the construction of the Megalennium battery contacts and the new AW 2600mAh 18650 negative battery plate design which has three raised bumps, none of which are in the middle where the Megallenium needs one to be.

Enjoy your new light oren1s!

Mudman, I've found that my light works intermittently with the AW2600 cells depending on how the batteries go in. Do the 5mm button magnets fit between the three raised bumps on the negative terminal of the AW 2600's? It seems that 6mm magnets don't fit between and thus end up with one side raised.

Thanks.

Paul

oren1s;

I have the same setup you're talking about (megalenium, FM bi pin MN adaptor, KT4, WA1185, but I'm using AW 2200 mah batteries). I did not go for the softstart option, mainly because it's expensive, and I could buy ~10 1185s for the softstart. I figure if I start instaflashing 1185s, I could then buy the softstart. I've found the 1185 to work fine without the softstart. I've not yet flashed even one. I usually charge my batteries to ~4.05 to ~4.15 in the interest of prolonging battery life.

One thing I have to say is tha the Megalenium/1185 combo is AWESOME! It really is a killer app in flashlights. Although I don't have a mag hotwire, I really think that for the size/output combination, it can't be beat. Of course with a mag, you can go for a much higher output hotwire, like a 623.

Good luck!

-John

Rather than using magnets i'll try this setup http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/...8&postcount=19

What do you think about Jimmy PWM regulator? https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/231489

Will it fit inside tailcap of Megalenium, the board is 30mm in diameter and about 6.5mm thick?

I agree, what i love is the M6 build and size over the Mag, though its a very nice light ROP or Mag85.

I like the idea of having regulation, as you can run WA01185 within its spec - gain bulb life and run time. Also can use MN21 etc.

Patriot said:

Mudman, I've found that my light works intermittently with the AW2600 cells depending on how the batteries go in. Do the 5mm button magnets fit between the three raised bumps on the negative terminal of the AW 2600's? It seems that 6mm magnets don't fit between and thus end up with one side raised.

Thanks.

Paul

Click to expand...

Hi Paul,
Yes, the 5mm button magnets do fit between the three raised bumps on the negative terminal of the AW 2600's. 5mm is the largest size that will fit. Unfortunately, I found that I still had to take the batteries out and put them back in before the connections were made. I can't say that this setup is more likely to work than the 6mm magnets I was using before. I think what they really need is a bump in the center of each magnet. The problem is, applying a drop of solder could heat the magnets above their Debye temperature and therefore demagnetize them. I have plenty of these magnets, so I am going to give it a shot with that in mind and report back.

What about sanding off with a Dremel the three bumps which on top of the negative terminal?

That gives me another idea - it might be just as easy (though probably not as safe) to attempt to add a bump of solder directly to the middle of each negative battery plate. As for using a Dremel to remove the bumps, they appear to have been formed by deforming a uniformly thick sheet, so grinding them down could create three holes. That may or may not actually cause a problem though. :shrug:

mudman cj said:

Hi Paul,
Yes, the 5mm button magnets do fit between the three raised bumps on the negative terminal of the AW 2600's. 5mm is the largest size that will fit. Unfortunately, I found that I still had to take the batteries out and put them back in before the connections were made.

Click to expand...

Thanks mudman. Taking into account that the 1mm thick magnet clearly protrudes enough to make reliable contact on the negative side. Do you think it's possible that there could be a problem with contact at the positive end, since this the magnet method still doesn't seem to be 100% consistent?